ATHEIST RHETORIC: EquivocationOr "Speak Before You Think "

What Do I Mean By Equivocation

Equivocation is a kind of logical fallacy where two definitions of a word are used within an argument, and the conclusion is based off of confusing one definition for the other. For instance,

Socrates is a man
Man covers the globe.
Therefore Socrates covers the globe. 

In the first premise, 'man' means male, but in the second premise 'man' means humanity. By assuming the two words mean the same thing, you come to an illogical conclusion and one that in this case if obviously false.

Now, perhaps a more relevant example:

Nothing comes from nothing
But in quantum mechanics, elementary particles can pop into existence from nothing.
Therefore premise one is false.

However, the word 'nothing' in premise one refers to literal nothingness, as in non-being. However, in premise two the word 'nothing' refers to a quantum vacuum, which is a repository of energetic fields, not literal nothingness. Therefore the word 'nothing is being equivocated.

Equivocation is generally a kind of mistake. Unlike most of what I talk about in these discussions on rhetoric, we are not discussing a rhetorical style as much as a tendency that I've noticed within the rhetoric. No one equivocates intentionally, and it is generally a result of sloppy writing, miscommunication between disciplines, or simple ignorance.

Apart from the example given above, most of the equivocation that I see coming from atheists is generally based on theological terms. There seems to be a disinterest in trying to understand where the theist is actually coming from. While I understand that it is inappropriate for me to expect the average atheist to understand theological language, once that atheist attempts to become a critic of religion and theology, he then has the responsibility of knowing he's talking about. But the New Atheists seem to disagree. Theology, just like any discipline, has its jargon, and one cannot assume to understand what philosophers and theologians mean by terms like "omnipotence" or "faith" because you heard the terms the last time you were in Sunday School when you were 12. There have been centuries of discussion about these ideas, and many of them have been refined over the ages. It is every one's duty to interact with the best that a position has to offer (or, like I am doing here, admit you are dealing with only a sect).

Equivocation In Action

Religion

The examples that I have chosen are the ones that I feel are the most problematic in terms of  how atheists understand what they are dealing with. In this regard, their misunderstanding of what 'religion' means is quite important. When pushed, most atheists would define religion by a belief in a higher power or God. However, most Atheists would recognize Buddhism as a religion, even though classic Buddhism doesn't believe in God, and they would also recognize Deism as not being a religion but rather a philosophy. Sometimes, they would criticize religion as the belief in God, and other times they will emphasize that the problem with religion is the belief in a God who answers prayers, which is more of an recognition of 'religion' meaning something deeper. So what exactly is a religion?

A better definition of religion is an organized system of thought that incorporates a worldview and daily practices, especially ritual. Recognizing that atheism is actually a worldview, and not simply disbelief, some theists have referred to Atheism itself as a religion. This is actually untrue, seeing how there are no rituals connected to Atheism. Atheism is more of a philosophy. But the atheist is quite right is noticing that most religions tend to believe in gods, and belief in gods generally leads to religion. However, religious tenancy and actually religion aren't really the same thing.

But that said, Atheism isn't the antithesis of religion for religion isn't simply the belief in God. Atheism itself is a full and positively asserted worldview just like the philosophy of Christianity or any other religion, and an atheist cannot define religion in terms of that ritual in some arguments, and yet restrict the term 'religion' as a type of worldview other times.

God

This comes down to one simple argument that Atheists tend to use (though it comes out in a variety of ways). Often times they will say, "well Christians don't believe in the myriad of other gods that others believe in; we simply go one god further." However, inherent within this argument is an equivocation.

The term 'god' in this context is understood in ontological or taxonomical terms. In other words, the term is used to denote the type of being that we are talking about.This is sort of a correct definition since this is how monotheists tend to use the word. However, the God of the Bible is as different from Thor as a human is from an ant. When used across religions in this way, this definition clearly breaks down and ceases to make sense. Thor isn't a god in the same way as Adonai.

When we are dealing with the word in terms of inter-religious studies, it is better to define it in relational terms: a god is a being who is worshipped. A being is innately a god, would be a being is worthy of worship due to its innate nature (which would certainly apply to Adonai).

Thus in this argument, and its variants, the Atheist is equivocating the philosophical definition of 'God' with the inter-religious definition of 'god', resulting in a confused argument. There are other problems with the above argument, but those do not apply to the topic of this post.

The End Result

There isn't so much a result of equivocation as much as equivocation is a result. It is fundamentally what happens when someone doesn't bother to learn the position that they are criticizing. This is overall a good lesson for us Christians as well, because often we use arguments grounded in ignorance or misunderstanding as well. We cannot assume our position when talking to someone who isn't familiar with it. We need to speak truth in their language as much as we can, which means learning that language.

In terms of when atheists use such arguments, it is really our advantage. Ignorant arguments only convince the ignorant. We need to recognize how they are misconstruing things, correct them, and then challenge them on their ignorance. Simple correction isn't sufficient because if they are ignorant of this, then it is likely they are ignorant of other things.

And don't simply say, "Have you even read the Bible?", but it isn't reading that is important but understanding it. There are a plethora of people out there, both who claim to be Christian and those who don't, who have read the Bible from cover to cover. It is more important to encourage them to be inquisitive, to talk to experts, and to read commentaries and scholars if they are truly interested in engaging Christianity. Remember, it isn't argument that changes a person's mind. Arguments are designed to give someone the intellectual permission to consider Christianity, but it is ultimately the Spirit who convinces someone.

One Year

One year ago yesterday, my second son Justin was born. 10 days later on October 27th he died.* He is now buried in a family plot in my wife's hometown. We just came home today, and I am rather emotionally dead. Not tired, but I just am not feeling much right now.

That said, I've been thinking about the nature of pain and suffering in the life of a Christian. Many people have been impressed with how Esther and I have dealt with Justin's passing. Our story regarding Justin has encouraged and even helped many people who surround us. I don't think that this is why Justin died, for all death and tragedy is first and foremost tied to the fallen nature of the world, but I am happy that God has been able to use Justin's brief life for His glory, and for helping others.

I do not understand those who find solace in the notion that when bad things happen to them, that it was designed by God. Sure, knowing that something going on may have a good reason behind it may make me feel better when I don't get the job I want, or  maybe even if I get in a car crash. But when it comes to my newborn son dying? Not really. We have to remember that according to Scripture there are things which happen which God didn't want to have happen. The hope we have in Christ and security that we find in Christ are grounded both in the sense that He will help us in this life, but more in that in the end He wins.

In the end, I am comforted by knowing that I will see him again. He is OK. He might be disconnected from his body, but that is only temporary. That may not stop me from being sad, but I would probably be distraught without such assurance.

I remember an atheist who once commented that Christians don't really believe in what we say we do, because we are still sad when someone dies. Because, you know, no one cries when someone moves away. Not really the best example of reasoning. But I think it also underestimates the weight of empty arms. When you expect to be holding an infant, and there is no infant to hold, your arms... ache. It is not just about life vs. death, but the is vs. the ought. Sorrow, anger, etc... they come when the is and the ought don't line up. And though Justin is fine, it is still not the way things ought to be.

But one day, one day, the is will be the same as the ought, and on that day, we'll see Justin, and get to find out what his life has been like.


_______________________________________________________________
*Don't chide me about the math. It was 10 days.

You Always Liked Mom Best*

It is wonderful having a son. I love being a father. And what is really precious are those moments when you recognize that he's figured something out for the first time. Watching his mind really work, and seeing him learn is absolutely amazing. Not to mention the times where we just wrestle on the bed, and I throw him really high when his mom isn't looking.

However, you know what isn't fun? When he only wants his mom. And I don't mean when he is playing with his mother and he doesn't want me to interrupt. I get that. I mean when he wants absolutely nothing to do with me. It is as if the fact that I am not his mother is an affront to all things good and decent in the world.

Now this wasn't exactly surprising. I was often told that younger children tend to prefer their mother. What is more surprising is how heartbreaking it can actually be! It is my own emotional reaction to being rejected by my son that really shocks me. It is especially because I know how artificial his preference is at the moment.

No, I'm not really planning on making some theological point out of all of this. I'm really just venting. Fortunately, my wife is excellent at not simply submitting to my son's demands. At the end of the day though, it often balances out, and we often have great fun.

________________________________________________
* Anyone who catches the Smothers Brothers reference gets 20 internet points.

ATHEIST RHETORIC: RidiculeOr "Instant Argument; Just Ad Hominem"

What Do I Mean By Ridicule

The Indelicate Dawkins

Richard Dawkins is on record for saying the following,

Mock them. Ridicule them. In public. Don't fall for the convention that we are all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits. Religion makes specific claims about the universe that need to be substantiated, and need to be challenged, and if necessary need to be ridiculed with contempt. 

I do not wish to take him out of context, so I have listened to this speech. The speech is actually about not being ashamed of one's atheism: not being afraid to stand up for what you believe. While that is commendable, it is rather interesting that he ends on this point. It shows exactly what his thinking is.

He does not believe that one should stand up for one's beliefs because discussion leads to better understanding. He does not believe that one should stand up for one's beliefs because one has a voice and has a right to be heard. He does not believe that one should stand up for one's beliefs because one's beliefs can be tested and refined by engagement with other ideas. And he most certainly doesn't believe that one should stand up for one's beliefs because human beings are innately fallible, and you never know if you need to be corrected.

Instead, he believes that atheists should stand up for their beliefs so that others can be silenced, for he assumes that atheism always wins. While I can commend Dawkins and the many atheists who are like him for their confidence, I cannot commend them for their hubris. They cross this line by not merely assuming that they are right, but by assuming that their position is so self-evident that the opposing view does not need to be seriously considered or listened to (and therefore should be silenced). While I consider the atheist position to incorrect, I do believe that there is value in understanding where atheists are coming from because they are fellow human beings. Even if there is no merit to their position, by understanding it I would be in a better place to showing them where they err and gain a better understanding of my own beliefs as well. It is perhaps this inability to listen that causes Dawkins to only be taken seriously by those who already agree with him.

But Why Ridicule?

All of that said, it doesn't really address the question of what is the rhetorical value of ridicule. One could say that is to revel in their sense of self-superiority, but A) I am hesitant to psycho-analyze an entire group of people and B) if this was the only reason, I don't think they would admit to doing it. So from the atheists' perspective, I think it is intended to serve two purposes.

First, I think the fundamental justification for it, and this is reading between the lines of Dawkins, is that they feel if they demonstrate the ridiculousness of our beliefs, they might just shake us of our delusion, like Simon Cowell tried to do on American Idol. However since this never actually works (because a belief in God isn't logically ridiculous and most of their insults are straw men), there must be another reason for why they would openly use it as a rhetorical strategy.

I think this strategic purpose is what rhetoricians call poisoning the well. Poisoning the well is attempting to discredit a particular side before that side is able to speak. In this sense, they are attempting to create in the public consciousness the belief that religious people are stupid or deluded and thus shouldn't be listened to. In other words, it isn't really about changing the perspective of the person that are talking with, but influencing the culture to disregard religion.

Ridicule In Action

Peter Atkins Vs. John Lennox

One of the more shocking examples of this that I have witnessed is a conversation between two Oxford professors, atheist chemist Peter Atkins and Christian mathematician John Lennox, which was called "Dueling Professors" (You can be find it on Youtube). John Lennox is one of my favorite people, period, while Peter Atkins has struck me as being quite pompous in previous things that I have read by him or watched of him.

But the level of malevolence and spite that came from Professor Atkins in this video is simply stunning. He makes incredibly few actual arguments throughout the conversation, and usually simply scoffs or belittles Professor Lennox. One definitely hears Atkins' raspy voice far more than Lennox's simply because Atkins constantly interrupts him. He even dips into racism as he reduces the fact of Lennox's faith down to him being Irish, which he follows up with "Get em' while their young".

While ridicule is fairly constant in atheist rhetoric, I must admit that this is the worst example I know. What is striking about it is that I don't think either of them come out of this conversation strong. It simply feels like Atkins bullying Lennox, rather than anything constructive. And this is how I feel about most of these examples: it makes Christians look weak, and Atheists look like jerks. I might add that Lennox has held his own against Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. It is simply difficult to present one's positions when one is not allowed to speak.

Richard Dawkins Vs. William Lane Craig

One of the more curious examples of ridicule is the interaction between Dr. Richard Dawkins and Dr. William Lane Craig, or should I say the lack there of. William Lane Craig is easily the most respected and formidable Christian apologist alive today, and yet Dawkins, who claims to be able to easily trounce any Christian and who claims that he has never received a good answer to his arguments, refuses to debate with him.*

To me, this is fascinating. I honestly don't care if Dawkins ever does debate Craig one-on-one, though I would certainly enjoy watching it. But what is interesting is how Dawkins justifies it. He usually does so by trying to debase Dr. Craig.

One excuse is that he doesn't debate Creationists, even though Dr. Craig isn't a Creationist. Another is that Dr. Craig had the audacity to morally defend Israel's invasion of Canaan, even though that is just a basic tenant of believing in the Bible. Also he has attempted to discredit his credentials, such as calling him Mister instead of Doctor (though he has two doctorates, on in philosophy and one in theology), and joke that he is a nobody, even though he clearly isn't.

Now personally, I think there is a good reason for Dawkins to not debate Craig, even if Dawkins would win (which I don't actually think he would). Dr. Craig's reason for debating is to demonstrate that it is possible to be an intelligent person and still be a Christian. Dr. Dawkins' purpose is try and demonstrate religion to be foolish. Even if Dawkins were to win a debate against Craig, Dr. Craig still wouldn't make a fool of himself, and I that is against Dawkins general goals.

Overall, I think Dawkins believes that win or lose, Craig would gain more prestige and would be more well known if they debated, and he doesn't want that. However, this doesn't excuse him poisoning the well whenever the subject arises.

The End Result

Well the goal of this rhetoric is to demonstrate that the atheist is intellectually superior, but it also tends to make them look like jerks. However, I think to them that is a reasonable trade-off. Part of the point after all is that facts are facts, and if we don't like them, we are just in denial. It makes us question our own offenses, thinking, "Am I offended because they are doing something wrong, or because I have a prejudice that they are exposing?"

I've come to the point where I have tested my prejudices enough to know the difference. Absolutely there are some things that they say that make me feel uncomfortable because they are good points, like the Bible justifying certain things that our culture doesn't like (and visa versa) or when a Christian person or group does something unChristlike. These are things which are uncomfortable for me to deal with, and it is frustrating to have to go over them multiple times.

However, there is also plenty that they say and do that is just plain childish and naive, like equivocating all religons, name-calling, or judging their opponents by the worst adherents while judging their own by the best. Sometimes the frustration to the first case can mask our proper indignation and annoyance at the second. This masking is something that they are relying on, disguising bad arguments as us having trouble facing the hard facts.

It is amazing how well this actually works, especially considering how childish it really is. It reminds me of mud-slinging in political campaigns, where everyone knows they are being manipulated by them, yet statistics show that they work! It is the basic fact that just because they are manipulating you, it doesn't mean they don't have a point. So you listen to them anyway, even though you know that a large chunk of what they are saying is mere posturing and propaganda.

As Christians, we combat this by sticking to core arguments and being well educated. They might be able to convince everyone that they are smart, but they need help from us to convince people that we are dumb. Having just a bit of intellectual chops can be enough to at least dispel the illusion of intellectual superiority enough for people to hear you when you point out that their arguments don't actually hold water. It also doesn't hurt to demonstrate how childish they are really being.
__________________________________________________
*In 2010 both Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Richard Dawkins were in a panel debate in Mexico on the question of "Does the Universe have a purpose?". This exception to Dawkins' general refusal to debate Craig seems to be connected to the fact that Dawkins was a last minute replacement of someone else. According to Dr. Craig, Dr. Dawkins didn't know that Dr. Craig was also on the panel until he arrived at the event. I haven't heard this from Dawkins' own mouth, but it seems probable.

Atheist Rhetoric: The Series

This is the index page of a new series that I am planning on doing. As the series progresses, I'll be adding links here to each installment. Like my series on Calvinist rhetoric, its length is not planned. I'll include new installments as I come up with them. The first installment will be up next week.

This series will be engaging in what is known as presuppositional apologetics (or in this case polemics) where the underlying assumptions of a position are considered as opposed to looking at evidence or surface level arguments. While I will be talking about some arguments in particular, that will not be my objective. Instead, I will be trying to assess why Atheists argue what they argue (even when it comes to decent arguments) based off of how Atheists tend to argue.

My current posts in this series are:

• Ridicule
• Equivocation

Each post has three sections: What I Mean By _____(where I explain the rhetorical phenomenon I'm talking about), ____ In Action (where I discuss briefly some Atheists arguments that use the rhetoric), and The End Result (where I talk about my analysis of rhetoric's effectiveness with Christians). You may also notice that each post has two titles: one which is silly and one which is serious. This is because I enjoy torturing people with my bad sense of humor. Please indulge me.

This series is meant to be neither comprehensive in terms of discussing all aspects of Atheist rhetoric, nor to be comprehensive in terms of each post applying to every single Atheist. Instead, this series is indicative of my experience interacting with Atheists and is meant to be representative of how, in general, Atheism is being presented.

How Being Anti-Abortion Is Like Being Anti-SlaveryAn appeal to the Pro-Life movement

I am not the kind of person who is frustrated when my opponent makes a point that I am not prepared for. My reaction is usually, "Huh. I should research that." But what really grinds my gears is when an ally makes a really bad point.

I'm sure as fellow pro-lifers you can empathize with that. Here we are, trying to stop people from killing babies, and somehow we are treated as horrible people. With a vast majority of the media on one side, all they have to do is quote any pro-life advocate that misspeaks, or when a stupid person who happens to be pro-life... well speaks. This is why it is incredibly important for us to really focus on messaging, because there are millions of lives that count on us communicating our message well.

So I propose a two piece plan. First of all, we need to associate ourselves with a historical movement which was not only successful, but recognized as a good thing by the general public, as well as one that we have a legitimate association with. And lo and behold this isn't that difficult: slavery.

So similarities between Pro-Life and Abolitionism:

• Both have to do with human rights. At the end of the day, that is all that we are fighting for: that the rights of a particular group of humans is recognized and respected. And not just the right to speak or anything like that, but the right to be treated as human beings.
  
  
• Both have to confront dehumanization. I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not think that being Pro-Choice is anything like being Pro-Slavery. Abortion and slavery are very different institutions, and thus the defences for them are very different. That said, since both abolition and Pro-life are based on recognizing a group's humanity, opposition to us must include why that group isn't fully human. This means that we can look to how such dehumanization was combated in the 19th century, and see if any of it is translatable. And of course maintain the campaign of showing people how these children really are children through pictures and other such means.
  
• Both are religiously motivated. I am not ashamed of this, but it is important to point out how religion plays a role in this debate. It is because the issue which really divides the two sides is whether or not an unborn child is human, and defining what a human is outside of religious circles is difficult. Indeed, the very notion of human rights was founded by religious circles, and it is questionable whether the concept can really survive when societies shift to secularism. But philosophy aside, when we are accused about being overly religious, we can look back and point out how important religion was to the abolitionists.
  
  
• Both are driven by an uncompromising ethic. It is as difficult to compromise on the killing of children as it is to compromise on men, women, and children living in chains. Which means that we should be the first who are appalled by sex-trafficking, bigotry, and all denials of humanity that exist around the world. Don't let the liberals own those issues. Those should be our issues.
  
  
• Both are movements championed by the Republican Party. Just saying. 

Right now the Pro-Choice movement gets a lot of distance by connecting itself to the feminist movement. We really should be using the same kind of rhetoric since we are really grounded in the same tradition as the abolitionists. So let us celebrate that heritage and proclaim it. 

The second piece of the plan is to stay on message. We are about human rights. The unborn child has rights. That's it. Any objection, and I mean "any", can and should be answered from that basic viewpoint. 

PC: What about in the case of rape?
PL: Does that justify killing the offspring?

PC: What if the mother's life were in danger?
PL: Yes, she also has the right to life. We don't ignore the women, and therefore there is not simple answer, but such a question should recognize that both lives are equally precious.

PC: It is the woman's body?
PL: There are two person's bodies in question here. Both should be respected

Just this simple rule would prevent us from saying anything dumb. Nothing more needs to be said. The argument stands for itself. If the conversation shifts to why is the child human, than that is exactly where we want it to go! Focus all of our energy on that one point. The Pro-Life movement stands or falls on that point. Therefore let it!

Thank you.

Abortion Is Not About EqualityAn appeal to the Pro-Choice movement

OK, a couple of caveats. I don't want to be deceitful, so I'll come right out and say that I am Pro-Life and I am sure that affects how I view Pro-Choice rhetoric. But, to any Pro-Choice person out there, please don't reject my point here until I have actually stated it, because I may not be saying what you think I will be saying.

First of all, I completely acknowledge that it is proper to understand the Pro-Choice movement as defending rights, specifically women's rights. What I reject is the idea that just because we are dealing with women's rights that we are therefore dealing with equality. In reality, we are dealing with a moral issue that happens to only directly affect women.

Here is where I think you (that is pro-choice people) have a point. In most contexts, a person has the right to decide what medial procedures will and will not be done to them. The government should not have the right to say that a smoker who develops lung cancer should just deal with the cancer because it is the natural consequences of their choices. In fact, I think we pro-lifers actually undercut our message when our arguments seem to ignore this.

However, there are other notable exceptions to this: suicide and drugs for instance. I would also include prostitution here, though it isn't a medical procedure. But it is still true that there are exceptions to the idea that we are allowed to do whatever we want with our own bodies. It is also important to note that the above activities are illegal for both men and for women. It is not gender specific.

And, quite frankly, neither is the illegality of abortion. The fact that it only influences woman is a consequence of biology, not patriarchy. Any Pro-Life person would equally abhor a man killing a fetus if he were pregnant; it just only happens in movies. The morality of the thing falls on our belief that the fetus is a human being and thus should have human rights. I want the full rights and privileges of the mother to be maintained in tension with the full rights and privileges of the child.

But here is the Pro-Life position, and I'll wrap it up really tight so that there is no confusion: fetuses are children. To me, the distinction between a fetus and a newborn is no different than a newborn and a toddler. Morally they are equivalent. So in a nutshell, we want human rights for fetuses. That is it. Period.

I regret that making abortion illegal will force a long term medical situation on the mother, and that is not shallow regret. I really regret it. It is a horrible thing to force on someone, especially since pregnancy shouldn't be something horrible. It is the most beautiful thing in the world, and I hate the fact that it can become something ugly in a woman's life because it was forced on her. That is appalling to me. But so is killing children.

And that is what we are against: killing children whether by men or women. This particular means is only biologically available to women, so naturally restricting it would only affect women. Thus, it is legitimately a matter of women's rights: how should the mother's rights and the child's rights be resolved when they are in direct conflict? That is a very difficult question, but it has nothing to do with mean at all, and thus has nothing to do with equality or inequality. I believe that equality is a very important thing, and tying abortion into the category of equality both waters down the word, and can hinder legislation that is truly about equality under the law between men and women. This issue is a separate issue, and should be kept separate.

Thank you for your consideration.